Aberrant: Trans-Dimensional Explorations - The Mary Sue test

[Alex Green]

AnonCastillo: I love it when you make posts about politics.

Thank you.

Alex Green: Star Trek was a communistic state. Lots, and lots, and lots, of real oddities get explained by that.

SkyLion: It’s not communistic. People don't live on communes and can choose their enterprise. Communism is, like capitalism, an economic system. In ST, they no longer use money, which is how they got to what BT says is overly optimistic.

They no longer use money (except that they do, it’s just money doesn’t amount to much since you aren’t allowed to spend it on much). It’s called Lattium, or maybe credits. Note replicators don’t rid society of having scarce resources, it just shifts what those scarce resources are. Not everyone can own a condo on a beach, etc.

In Star Trek people no longer own property, make investments, or allow interest from the same. Picard didn’t even recognize the concepts when they ran into a 20th century business man, and it has been stated many times that the economics of the future works differently. Further, note with all the replicators running around we’ve never seen the concept of intellectual property. Artists don’t appear to get paid for their works, etc.

SkyLion: People now work on what they *want* to do, rather than "making a living" or working at a job to subsidize survival.

There is a very old joke from the soviet countries, ”We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.”

Alex Green: 1) Indifference to humans dying in transporter accidents or due to bad ship design.

SkyLion: 1.) I have never seen the characters act indifferent...trather they seem more compassionate about death than many I know. Granted its television here.

Person after person dies horribly in a transporter, and transporter accidents is one of the staple plot lines. However, even when shuttles are available, transporters continue to be used and used heavily, apparently without punishment of the people who design, maintain, and build said machines. The closest modern annology would be the USSR’s continued use of nuclear subs dispite their effects on the sub’s crew. See Harrison Ford’s “K-19 the Widowmaker”.

Alex Green: 2) Extremely few ships, only the military and the those with extremely good contacts can have one.

SkyLion: 2.) There is actually a sizeable fleet…

AnonCastillo: 2) I think Paul might be assuming a little too much on this one. I've probably watched a lot less ST than the rest of you, but I can vaguely remember episodes where people had private shuttles. .You have to consider, though, othar than shipping (and replicators make shipping a lot of goods unnecessary) and transportation, there's not a lot of use for interplanetary vessels….

Sizeable? Using Transporters runs the risk of leaving you in pieces and some people think it removes their soul (McCoy). Supposedly everyone has access to replicators… and yet whenever we see the sky of a Federation City, we don’t see shuttles. The sky’s are *clear*, even from orbit. The VAST majority of shuttles appear to be owned and run by star fleet, with the few remaining being run by aliens, non-federation citizens, or people of extremely high rank. We don’t see teenagers take shuttles and go for a joy ride, we don’t see even the possibility of young couples taking one to go have sex somewhere. So… all Federation Citizens have access to unlimited wealth, free choice, and NO ONE chooses to get a shuttle?

And yes, the vast majority of citizens don’t actually need a shuttle. The problem is that in societies where there is some freedom of expression, choice, and personal wealth, we see the vast majority of people choose to have some sort of vehicle. America has *far* more personal aircraft than the Federation does. There’s a guy in my neighborhood who actually has his own personal helicopter. Ergo, the choice to own a shuttle isn’t available to Federation citizens.

…and Starfleet is not a military, at least not the way we think of them….

When wars occur, and they do, who fights them? When the authorities decided to put troops on streets (as in DS9) which authorities were those and whose troops were they? Star Fleet, Star Fleet, & Star Fleet. And yes, as typical in a communistic society, the military does have a very sizable impact and influence in society. Or to put it differently, largely the military runs things (they get first call on resources, etc). In theory there is civilian control, in practice, the military is a big mover and shaker in society.

Alex Green: 3) Existence of an open black market.

SkyLion: 3.) run by aliens. As most Terrans dont even use money anymore, the black market is mainly for the smuggling of weapons (often WMDs in the show)and other contraband.

Cassy Yates, Sisco’s girlfriend from DS9. And note that although Sisco is a high ranking member of the military, he tolerates it. In communistic societies the black market serves all kinds of functions.

,,

Alex Green: 5) Incompetence of officers, of military design, of military strategy and tactics.

SkyLion: 5.) …Incompetencies will exist anywhere, regardless of the socio-economic system. IMHO, this showed that even in the future, individuals can still be screw-ups.

Individuals? I'm not talking about the individuals, I'm talking about the organization.

Look at how mind numbingly unergonomic and difficult to aim their weapons are. I can pick up a modern gun, point it, and have a decent idea of where the bullet will go. With ST you need lots and lots of training. We’ve never seen any armored units, we’ve never seen any heavy weapons (apart from Kirk’s era), or body armor, or artillery, or ground transport vehicles, and finally, they don’t have ground combat marines of rank (i.e. Star Fleet runs the army as well as being fly boys).

ST has hand guns, rifles, and ships. And because the air force runs the military we don’t see things for ground grunts.

Alex Green: 6) Uniformity of thinking, of style, etc.

SkyLion: 6.) Uniformity of style=a combo of starfleet uniforms, and having the same costume designer.

Not just uniforms, how many human ST members have been of a different religion? Language? Culture? The *only* human that comes to mind is that Indian from Voyager and he quit Star Fleet to become a Makey terrorist/revolutionary.

SkyLion: In short, I applaud Star treks vision of a humanity that has found peace, at least within our own species. Rather than finding it boring, I find it to be refreshing and it chalenges the jaded nihilistic cynicism that has become so prevalent today.

[SkyLion]

Latinum isn't used by the federation except when trading with other cultures that do (like the Ferengei)

,,

Artists dont get paid for their work because nonone does....what would you spend money on? If you want to devote your life to some work, you do. If you want to hang out on the beach you do. (Also, I hate the argument that if there were no economic pressure people would be lazy...trust me...people would be lazy for a bit, then get bored and look for a project or a cause.)

,,

If you want to paint, sculpt, make music you do. If you want to serve in Starfleet, you study hard and make that your purpose. ST is an Meritocracy.

,,

You are overstating the transporter risk. Its hardly a staple, and not that many people have died....FAR FAR more miniscule amount than die everyday in automobiles. It does make a good plot device but several of the episodes which feature accidents end up having people alive in the buffer, had a clone split off, or it was a faked accident. All of these are *very* rare occurences. Also the reason people dont need cars or aircraft. You can transport instantly across the planet, wherever you like, and it costs you nothing.

,,

Oh, and there have been several shots of federation cities showing aerial shuttlecraft...

,,

Cassidy Yates is a non-federation allied terran who *works* for/with the black market. She doesnt run it. Sisko doesnt mind cuz A.) Its not his jurisdiction (that would be the Bajorans) and B.) Hes in the frontier, where such services are neccessary and C.) she has proven to him that she has strong ethics, or he (given his principles) wouldn't be her BF

,,

Regarding Red Shirts...that was a convention of the early ST...I didnt come on board until TNG. And BN is right ...there have been several funerals, and Picard has always shown to have a deep conocern and even love for his crew.

,,

With the current level of technology, large infantry ground units are vulnerable and impractical. However, there are many instances of heavy weapons in the series (though armor is useless against energy weapons...better to have mobility and dodge) and phasers are quite ergonomic and easy to aim...point and shoot and they arent as heavy, nor have the kickback of firearms...

[metaphysician]

Armor may be useless ( allegedly, and Star Trek 6 at least indicates otherwise ) but force fields are not. If Worf can jury rig a personal force field out of a comm badge, every single away team or combat unit should be outfitted with personal force fields.

And yes, phasers are unergonomic. I could buy it for the type 1 jobbies, for which compactness is the primary virtue, but no primary weapon that requires you to bend your wrist forward nearly 90 degrees can be called well designed. Again, the phasers from the TOS era made much more sense ( handweapons use a pistol grip for a *reason* ).

I can buy that ground vehicles probably aren't worthwhile given orbital weaponry, but geez, Starfleet, could you read the history books enough to discover the concept called "Aircraft Carrier"?

[Alex Green]

...(Also, I hate the argument that if there were no economic pressure people would be lazy...trust me...people would be lazy for a bit, then get bored and look for a project or a cause.),,

If you want to paint, sculpt, make music you do. If you want to serve in Starfleet, you study hard and make that your purpose.

Of course people will find things to do. The problem is most of those things won't make economic sense. In an ideal world I'd work out, play computer games, and get laid. But if everyone is doing that, then there aren't anywhere near enough people developing software (etc).,,

Oh, and there have been several shots of federation cities showing aerial shuttlecraft...

Sure. A shuttlecraft or two, in highly developed cities where lots of well off people exist. And if we opened them, we'd find Star Fleet ops.

Assume the New York of the future has 20 million people. Why aren't there 10 million shuttle craft? And why aren't there hundreds of thousands of different types of craft? The answer to the second part is they aren't made... so why aren't they made? There's no demand for them?

,,

Cassidy Yates is a non-federation allied terran who *works* for/with the black market. She doesnt run it. Sisko doesnt mind cuz A.) Its not his jurisdiction (that would be the Bajorans) and B.) Hes in the frontier, where such services are neccessary and C.) she has proven to him that she has strong ethics, or he (given his principles) wouldn't be her BF

A few moments ago you were claiming the Black Market only shiped weapons of mass destruction. ,,

...there have been several funerals, and Picard has always shown to have a deep conocern and even love for his crew.

Sure he does. I'm not critical of Picard or his concern, I'm pointing a finger at the system and it's problems.,,

With the current level of technology, large infantry ground units are vulnerable and impractical.

Hardly. They invade or defend against the same. One of the things to keep in mind is that there are a number of technological ways of shutting down or blocking transporters. At that point you need grunts on the ground, but Star Trek always uses it's own personel.

However, there are many instances of heavy weapons in the series

??? Name three. I'm finding it hard to come up with even one.

(though armor is useless against energy weapons...better to have mobility and dodge)

Half the armies they deal with still have knives and swords (Klingon and Jem Hadar). Then we have forcefield technology, etc.

and phasers are quite ergonomic and easy to aim...point and shoot

No. Point what? You basically have a rock. Where does the beam come out? Modern guns have handles and gun sights, so you can tell where it's going to hit. If we wanted to make modern guns where the bullet comes out of a rock sized object with the wrist at a 90 degree angle where the gun doesn't have sights we could. We could even train people use them.

and they arent as heavy, nor have the kickback of firearms...

Granted, the technology is supperior.

[metaphysician]

Another military tech complaint: photon torpedoes seem to have no greater usable range than phasers. Its a guided weapon, or at least its supposed to be. Why don't they shoot them when at several times normal phaser range?

Re: heavy weapons, Insurrection saw some stuff hauled out. I remember seeing referrence to something called "photon grenades" once, though they didn't see action that ep. Outside of that, the heaviest I ever saw in the non TOS era is phaser rifles ( which never seemed to do anything a hand phaser couldn't ).

[SkyLion]

Of course people will find things to do. The problem is most of those things won't make economic sense. In an ideal world I'd work out, play computer games, and get laid. But if everyone is doing that, then there aren't anywhere near enough people developing software (etc).

,,

Ah...but what is "enough"? I have a theory that if everyone on Earth was *really* doing what they *really* wanted we would have a different society making different choices. The claim that there wont be enough is skewed by the economic pressupositions of infintie growth and competition for finite resources (rather than using not-scarce and obscenely under-exploited natural energy) that leads to the current state of global war and the military-industrial complex.

,,

A poigniant example from one of my anthro classes: Americans and other first worlders work 40-60 and up hours per week to pay for much of our so-called time-saving conveniences. Gatherer-Hunter tribes, whom are often assumed to spend their entire lives and days subsisting, actually spend at the most 6 hours per day and no more than 20 hours per week taking care of domestic neccesities. With their time, they work out, get laid, create beautiful art and spiritually rich culture.

,,

People would still make computer games....the people that want to play them. People would become more involved in their lives and interests rather than paying other people to do them. And we'ld actually have enough time to make it all worthwhile.

,,

The problem is we have been sold on the lies of consumerism and built-in obsolescence for so long that we no longer have our priorites straight. Gene Roddenberry tried giving us a future vision that combined the best of both worlds...infinite possible consumer goods and a society with the wisdom to know what is truly important (hint: its *not* money)

,,

Assume the New York of the future has 20 million people. Why aren't there 10 million shuttle craft? And why aren't there hundreds of thousands of different types of craft? The answer to the second part is they aren't made... so why aren't they made? There's no demand for them?

,,,,,,

Assuming pollution is no longer an issue....YES there is no longer demand. Transporters are WAY more efficient. There isnt the appalling level of collision deaths and the skies and nature have been allowed to flourish once more. Driving for hours to go camping sucks....better to transport in and save the stiffness of driving or flying.

A few moments ago you were claiming the Black Market only shiped weapons of mass destruction.

I didnt say only!!! I said that was how they are usually used in episodes....difference. We know Quark does a wide range of BM business....

,,,,

Hardly. They invade or defend against the same. One of the things to keep in mind is that there are a number of technological ways of shutting down or blocking transporters. At that point you need grunts on the ground, but Star Trek always uses it's own personel.

Good point. Transporters can be blocked. I think the reason you dont see alot of tanks etc. is partly the air force thing you mentioned (vastly superior to ground troops, especially when phasers can drill into the ground from orbit...) The other reason is that, once again...there society isnt based on a military industrial complex.

??? Name three. I'm finding it hard to come up with even one.

There is the phaser rifle, but as metaphysician pointed out, a hand phaser is more than enough to totally disintegrate someone. The aforementioned grenades, and I know I have seen some form of rocket launcer somewhere (I think maybe a photon rocket)

Half the armies they deal with still have knives and swords (Klingon and Jem Hadar). Then we have forcefield technology, etc.

True, force fields come in handy, but the one worf whipped up was only good for blocking like 3 bullets max.

Mobility will also help you against Hand weapons. Armor that was strong enough to stop the strength of a Jem Hadar or Klingon would be far to bulky to make sense....still better to dodge.

No. Point what? You basically have a rock. Where does the beam come out? Modern guns have handles and gun sights, so you can tell where it's going to hit. If we wanted to make modern guns where the bullet comes out of a rock sized object with the wrist at a 90 degree angle where the gun doesn't have sights we could. We could even train people use them.

Phaser rifles have sights. What you dont realize is how easy it is to point and shoot a phaser. The beam has no kickback, and doesnt have the spin or innaccuracy of pistols, neither is it affected by wind. Aiming is as easy as pointing and sighting down your arm....also remember that phasers are beam weapons capable of sustained firing....you could hold the trigger down and cut up a whole platoon of troops with the slightest flicking of your wrist,,,

[AnonCastillo]

A poigniant example from one of my anthro classes: Americans and other first worlders work 40-60 and up hours per week to pay for much of our so-called time-saving conveniences. Gatherer-Hunter tribes, whom are often assumed to spend their entire lives and days subsisting, actually spend at the most 6 hours per day and no more than 20 hours per week taking care of domestic neccesities. With their time, they work out, get laid, create beautiful art and spiritually rich culture.

And yet, the farmers won out with their 12 hour work days and 7 day weeks. Not to mention that lifespans in our consumerist nation are much longer than in those hunter-gatherer tribes, so overall we still get at least as much total recreation time. Better in some ways? Maybe, but keep in mind the hunter-gatherer lifestyle has mostly died out for a reason: economic systems provide more stable and secure sustenance.

[SkyLion]

Agriculture arose due to the power of city-states...almost all of the early ones were built by slaves...

,,

And I would argue that our quality of life, of the environment, of peoples connections to each other and between generations, has alot lacking in comparison to those who lived with nature.

[metaphysician]

If you want to live til your 40 ( at best ), every waking hour worrying that you or your family will be killed by a passing carnivore, the latest disease, a lack of food, or random natural disaster, feel free. The rest of us will be appreciating the fact that, yes, modern life is superior to subsistence hunter-gatherer life.

And that "free, abundant, underexploited" natural energy is underexploited because its virtually useless. "Abundant" in this case is a code word for "so dissipated that it can't be concentrated without spending more energy than you get." Doesn't do you any good to have, say, 10 gigajoules worth of solar energy about, if you have to spend 11 gigajoules to put it all in one place.

[SkyLion]

Actually tribal life was rarely that harsh. Most tribes are at the top of their food chain, so its not like in DnD where you have to worry about marauding beasties. Lions for example will rarely hunt humans, especially groups of them.

,,

Also, many native tribes, especially in the amazon have acces to remedies that pharmaceutical companies are still trying to figure out. Native Americans especially had less to worry about disease until the europeans came...

,,

Likewise, your comment that tribal peoples spend every waking hour in a state of fear and worry, and your ethnocentric assumption that our lifestyle is superior points very candidly to your ignorance.

,,

Also, your comment on energy is misleading, because you are still thinking in terms of centralized power distribution rather than local self-sufficiency.

,,

Solar tech is vastly superior and getting better every day. We can now sandwhich solar cells into roof tiles and windows. If *every* building was designed with passive solar considerations. If every tile and every window had soalr cells feeding into a local grid, and the global grids were connected such that the light half of the planet powers the dark (see the GENI project). The economics of scale would make the production of solar cells dirt cheap If offshore windfarms were widely instituted and passive tidal power was utilized on the coasts...

,,

see where I am going with this? If all our cars used hydrogen fuel cells (less dangerous than gasoline), they could be plugged into your workstation to provide an american auto fleet sized power generation network (and yes I know it takes energy to get the hydrogen....so you use the offshore windfarms, and/or natural gas or these new fangled photoelectrochemical cells that separate hydrogen from water in the presence of sunlight at room temperature... ::ohmy ).

,,

My point was best summarized by the late Buckminster Fuller during the "oil crisis" of the 70's.

,,

He said: "There is no crisis of energy. Only a crisis of ignorance."

[Alex Green]

Ah...but what is "enough"? I have a theory that if everyone on Earth was *really* doing what they *really* wanted we would have a different society making different choices.

Very True. However, there are *HUGE* problems that come up with ignoring economic signals. Communistic states are known for not being able to feed their people (i.e. mass famines and starvation). The more communisticly the farming is, the bigger the problem. The core problem is that farming is a fairly complicated process, and the food simply rots if one of the steps is skipped or done wrong (i.e. if you don't have enough people to pick the grapes, they rot on the vines). If you don't ship it correctly, it's not there, etc.

ST gets around this with replicators, good for them, no one goes hungry (although if we tried this in a modern society that's exactly what has traditionally happened). But we do see that same level of inefficancy and gross mismanagement of resources in other fields. Specifically the millitary, but there are all sorts of signs that there is a "command and control" economy with some overwelming force making decissions, sometimes bad decissions.

,,

A poigniant example from one of my anthro classes: Americans and other first worlders work 40-60 and up hours per week to pay for much of our so-called time-saving conveniences. Gatherer-Hunter tribes, whom are often assumed to spend their entire lives and days subsisting, actually spend at the most 6 hours per day and no more than 20 hours per week taking care of domestic neccesities. With their time, they work out, get laid, create beautiful art and spiritually rich culture.

A third of the children don't live to the age of 5, average lifespan is 40, lots of women die in childbirth, i.e. no health care. And of course there are other problems; Ignorance + politics => offend the local witch doctor and you may be "cursed by the gods" and be driven out by the tribe.

And now we have another interesting little fact. Obviously histocially every act of procreation has included one man and one woman. However, I seem to recall genetic studies that claim that only about half of the men propigate their genes (as opposed to all of the women). My guess is this means the local "chief" has "access" to some or most of the women. Put another way, the strong dominate the weak.

It is very easy to compare our society's weak points with their strong points. It is also not fair.

The problem is we have been sold on the lies of consumerism and built-in obsolescence for so long that we no longer have our priorites straight. Gene Roddenberry tried giving us a future vision that combined the best of both worlds...infinite possible consumer goods and a society with the wisdom to know what is truly important (hint: its *not* money)

It is an interesting vision, and mostly a good one. However... people with free will tend to use it in ways that don't seem "optimal".

I.e. the moment you claim that everyone has made the same choice, i.e. not only to not buy shuttle craft but to not paint their in special colors, I have to say that this means that they don't really have choice at all.

Assuming pollution is no longer an issue....YES there is no longer demand. Transporters are WAY more efficient. There isnt the appalling level of collision deaths and the skies and nature have been allowed to flourish once more. Driving for hours to go camping sucks....better to transport in and save the stiffness of driving or flying.

Given free will, a signficant subset of the population will find out that they enjoy flying. Unlimited wealth => more airplanes. That's why the US has more than anyone else.

Keep in mind that even right now, outside of the military, there is no reason for sky diving, but there are people who do it anyway because they like it. I've done it.

So in this future society, no one has figured out that flying is fun?

[SkyLion]

Flying is fun! So is falling with style! ::laugh

,,

Regarding communistic food production, the best solution I have heard comes from Permaculture. Like most things, having large centralized power/food/government etc. has allowed us to grow past our sustainable limits since the large subsidies involved skew and hide the "true cost."

,,

Food production, like energy generation needs to be localized, even down to the household.

,,

For starters, basic gardening becomes a part of elementary school curriculum with school gardens etc.

,,

People that want to grow their own food can. If you dont want to grow your own food you lease part of your front or back yard or rooftop to the city and other people come during the day to use the land.

,,

There are *SO* many feasable solutions to our problems today. The obstacles in the way of their implementation involve high level greed on both a political and personal level....most everyone can see the writing on the wall but precious few are willing to make any changes.

,,

Another symptom of the same cause is what I see every day as a massage therapist. People who *know* they should exercise, stretch, eat well, and quit smoking...but they dont....

,,

Somewhere along the line our priorities got all f---ed up.

,,

And so you know, this topic is of great personal interest to me. I have studied ecological design. Particular empahasis was placed on urban re-design, and problem solving. I did a project on the current state of solar energy etc...

,,

What I have found in my humble researching shows that the technology and know-how to solve our problems has existed for awhile now. We dont need the appearance of Novas to save us. We just need the will of enough people to want it.

,,

The reasons they dont are many and not easy to generalize but I can name a few off the top of my head: Media and government have turned education towards the production of ignorant consumers....many people who I think would make better choices, have simply never been exposed to the information.

,,

Apathy,,,others I have talked to just didnt care...so long as they got to go out drinking after work and play video games they sought no other information.

,,

Fear and hopelessnes...the problems seem so huge and governments conduct geopolitics at the ends of nuclear weapons or worse.

,,

Behind it all though is the military industrial complex and the extra-national corporations that subsidize it. IMF, World Bank...Chemical companies that create and release more harmful pollutants every year. Privatized nuclear industries that want to build more plants (despite the lie we were sold of "too cheap to meter!" Nuclear power is the single most expensive thing we do, *not* counting the ecological costs of the waste products...stupidity!).

,,

I lent it to a friend and never got it back but I used to have this printout called "what the world wants" It had a grid with each square representing a billion dollars or some such. The whole grid represented what the US spends on the military *every year*. Then overlaid were shaded boxes for all of the things it would take to "fix" our current problems....dealing with world hunger, aids, land mines, retirement of national debts, universal health care etc etc etc. All of the shaded amounts were broken down and estimated costs give. For everything on the global agenda it took up less than a third of the total boxes.

,,

It is clear to me that the answers are staring us in the face and we are just choosing war, disease, hunger etc. If we *really* wanted to we could change.

,,

First thing is first though...we need to question the basic assumption of the State. We wouldnt need to spend so much on the military if there were no other countries to fight. We can still have nations mind you...distinct cultures and groupings and people...but the blind and brutal competition for resources must stop. Bucky and others have shown, theoretically AND numerically that contrary to popular belief there actually IS enough to go around. Litterally enough so that each and every human being could live at a higher standard than what is known today. Not everyone gets a mansion and a personal jet of course, but those things were never sustainable in the first place....

,,

Priorities...

And just to add that I am not in favor of communism. It has been shown to be as unworkable and unsustainable as capitalism. Most people believe that its one or the other, like Democrats and Republicans. They dont realize that there are other ways. There is a way to take the best of both ideas and forge something new. (and might I add...since world war 2, America has become a highly Socialistic State)

[Alex Green]

Good point. Transporters can be blocked. I think the reason you dont see alot of tanks etc. is partly the air force thing you mentioned (vastly superior to ground troops, especially when phasers can drill into the ground from orbit...)

So because the other side “might” have an air force, and “might” be willing and able to use it, we aren’t going to even develop things that would help a great deal in other situations?

The other reason is that, once again...there society isnt based on a military industrial complex. ...

Now this is an extremely sound reason. However there is another way to phrase this, something along the lines of, “Someone (probably society) is afraid of what would happen if the military were developed correctly and efficiently so it is deliberately keep weak and starved of resources”. Or… “The Military is hated and the decision has been made that we don’t *really* need it”.

There is the phaser rifle, but as metaphysician pointed out, a hand phaser is more than enough to totally disintegrate someone. The aforementioned grenades, and I know I have seen some form of rocket launcer somewhere (I think maybe a photon rocket)

That “rocket” I think was Worf using a rocket grenade. The word I’d use to describe it would be “unimpressive”. Kirk had some better stuff… but by the time the Next Gen came about it looks like the military had been stripped of their toys.

Something to point out is that a 1000 man Star Trek “army” would be a tremendously large group by their standards, but lets say they create one, armed with phasers and phaser rifles. A few might even have those grenade launchers.

Assuming both sides knew about each other and their respective capabilities, and removing air power from the equation; I would expect the Star Trekkers to be massacred by a well-equipped US military force of equal size.

US Military Advantages:

With artillery they can attack things they can’t see. This is a pretty lethal advantage right there.

With armor they won’t be killed if something blows up right by them.

The effective range of their weapons is actually better (sniper rifles have telescopes).

That kind of puts everything into perspective. What *should* happen is the ST use their triquorters to locate the US-M (notice I didn’t include camouflage as an advantage for either side, the US-M’s get trumped by superior technology’s sensors and ST personal don’t use any). Then the ST crew should just roll over the US-M totally immune to bullets and shells because of their personal and Armored Personal Carrier forcefields. Heck, the ST crew could be invisible because of holodeck technology (we’ve seen it used for that), but that’s not used for the military either. Something ELSE we’ve never seen the ST army use is a mobile teleporter pad.

True, force fields come in handy, but the one worf whipped up was only good for blocking like 3 bullets max. … Mobility will also help you against Hand weapons. Armor that was strong enough to stop the strength of a Jem Hadar or Klingon would be far to bulky to make sense....still better to dodge.

Being able to ignore the first three bullets is pretty huge by itself. Further, this is something built by “Wolf” under extreme conditions, so I’d assume Wesley could do MUCH better as a school project, and a real engineer could do an even better job. And considering he made it out of his com badge, it’s already light enough that he could also dodge with it. I’d assume that it’d work on a knife as well, bullets are harder to stop… and even if it didn’t, something is better than nothing.

As for actual armor, again, something is better than nothing, and modern (much less 25th century) armor is reasonably light. As for dodging, if you are already in combat it’s not always an option, nor does armor prevent dodging.

Phaser rifles have sights.

So do pistols. And I’ll point out that phaser rifles also have proper grips and triggers.

What you dont realize is how easy it is to point and shoot a phaser. The beam has no kickback, and doesnt have the spin or innaccuracy of pistols, neither is it affected by wind. Aiming is as easy as pointing and sighting down your arm....also remember that phasers are beam weapons capable of sustained firing....you could hold the trigger down and cut up a whole platoon of troops with the slightest flicking of your wrist,,,

Yes it is easy, but we are comparing their hand guns with ours, we are comparing their hand guns with how they should be made. Not having kickback isn’t an excuse for no sights. Sustained fire isn’t an excuse for no proper grip. Being able to hold it straight and sight down your entire arm isn’t an excuse, much less a reason for, being horrible ergonomically.

The real problem IMHO is that they don’t want them to look like guns. So efficiency and accuracy has been sacrificed for public PR.

[SkyLion]

So because the other side “might” have an air force, and “might” be willing and able to use it, we aren’t going to even develop things that would help a great deal in other situations?

,,

Because of the nature of the show the focused on "Space", ergo spaceships. Writers dont always have luxury us gamers do of picking apart things. ::wink

,,

But yeah...once a borg cube gets past the starfleet defenses, Earth is pretty much screwed.

,,,,

That kind of puts everything into perspective. What *should* happen is the ST use their triquorters to locate the US-M (notice I didn’t include camouflage as an advantage for either side, the US-M’s get trumped by superior technology’s sensors and ST personal don’t use any). Then the ST crew should just roll over the US-M totally immune to bullets and shells because of their personal and Armored Personal Carrier forcefields. Heck, the ST crew could be invisible because of holodeck technology (we’ve seen it used for that), but that’s not used for the military either. Something ELSE we’ve never seen the ST army use is a mobile teleporter pad.

,,

You continue to impress me sir.

,,

The real problem IMHO is that they don’t want them to look like guns. So efficiency and accuracy has been sacrificed for public PR.

,,

Never thought of it that way, but yeah. Makes sense.

[Alex Green]

Food production, like energy generation needs to be localized, even down to the household.

We tried this year. The deer got most of it. I could give this a more serious whirl but I'd have to cut down most of my trees to increase sunlight. I also live in Michigan outside the food belt (i.e. it's cold).,,

Another symptom of the same cause is what I see every day as a massage therapist. People who *know* they should exercise, stretch, eat well, and quit smoking...but they dont....

Not sure what to do about this. The core problem is people making bad choices, goes with free will. On the good news side, you only see the ones making bad choices, on the bad news side, if everyone starts making good choices then your out of a job.

…I used to have this printout called "what the world wants" It had a grid with each square representing a billion dollars or some such. The whole grid represented what the US spends on the military *every year*. Then overlaid were shaded boxes for all of the things it would take to "fix" our current problems....dealing with world hunger, aids, land mines, retirement of national debts, universal health care etc etc etc. All of the shaded amounts were broken down and estimated costs give. For everything on the global agenda it took up less than a third of the total boxes.

It’s important to note that the world benefits from the presence of a global policeman. Like the local cops we don’t deal with every wrong doer, but just the possibility of punishment means there are limits to what happens. It’s a bad thing when the local rapist or murderer doesn’t even have the chance of being caught and punished, this is also true on a global level.

Further, many of those problems listed that could be fixed “with X amount of money”, really can’t be fixed with any amount of money.

World Hunger is largely a political problem, i.e. war, failed states, massive negative government interference in the food economy, over population in areas of the world that can’t support it, and that sort of thing. The world already produces more food than it needs to consume, there are already massive price distortions from Europe and the USA producing too much.

AIDS is largely a problem of human behavior, i.e. don’t have risky sex. Education helps, but I’m not expecting it to stop soon, and expecting people to not feel squeamish about dealing with this subject probably also won’t stop soon.

Universal health care will suck up any amount of money you want to throw at it until demand (which is infinite) exceeds supply (which is not). Note also many of the so-called solutions to this have very negative side effects people don’t want to talk about. Europe greatly suppresses the prices that drug manufacturers can charge for their drugs, and now the vast majority of drugs don’t get made or researched in Europe. It’s a high risk, high reward industry, changing it to a high risk; low reward industry means it won’t be capitalized very well. When UHC is introduced, health care gets rationed somehow (exactly as one would expect where demand is larger than supply) or the plan goes bankrupt.

If we *really* wanted to we could change.

Asking that is very, very hard. Perhaps eventually technology will change society to the point where that happens, but we are at least generations away. Further, it’s still unclear the change would be for the better.

First thing is first though...we need to question the basic assumption of the State. We wouldn’t need to spend so much on the military if there were no other countries to fight.

One of the definitions of a functional state, maybe the only one that matters, is a functioning state has a monopoly on the use of violence. An observation of my own is that many societal plans fall apart when they have to deal with the reality of bad-actors (call it evil if you will).

The Catholic Church wasn’t set up to deal with the idea that the local Priest can also be an evil child molester. Forgiving him didn’t work out well. Eventually the police and the lawsuits put a stop to it, but that’s what it took.

Bad actors can also happen on a national level, Hitler’s Germany. Sadam’s Iraq. North Korea. We don’t have lawsuits on this level, so what stops them?

RE: No Mansion

What stops me from taking more than my fair share of resources? I’m smarter, stronger, bigger, healthier, more hansom, more ambitions, better connected to the political establishment etc, shouldn’t I get more? What stops me?

And then we have the other problem, if something does stop me from getting more than my fair share of resources, this implies my efforts are not being rewarded, and not rewarding people like me is a bad thing for a society.

[SkyLion]

We tried this year. The deer got most of it. I could give

this a more serious whirl but I'd have to cut down most of my trees to

increase sunlight. I also live in Michigan outside the food belt (i.e.

it's cold).

Good on you. Try indoor hydrponics for things like tomatoes.

,,,,

Not sure what to do about this. The core problem is people

making bad choices, goes with free will. On the good news side, you

only see the ones making bad choices, on the bad news side, if everyone&

starts making good choices then your out of a job.

,,

Actually no. My work isn't dependant on health choices.

Healthy people can have just as much a need for massage if not

more...their health lets them use their bodies in more vital

ways. As long as muscles are burning ATP, there will be a need

for massage therapists. ::laugh On the other hand, sometimes I wonder how it is I can be paid so much

(and my boss makes more) for what I do. Backrubs are what friends

and family are for! ::laugh ::laugh

On the other other hand, my professional level lets me do things the

layperson cant...like massaging for up to 9 hours a day without&

soreness, fatigue or even injury. Knowing anatomy and functional

kinesiolgy helps too.

,,

It's important to note that the world benefits from the presence of a

global policeman. Like the local cops we don't deal with every wrong

doer, but just the possibility of punishment means there are limits to

what happens. It's a bad thing when the local rapist or murderer&

doesn't even have the chance of being caught and punished, this is also

true on a global level.

Further, many of those problems

listed that could be fixed "with X amount of money", really can't be

fixed with any amount of money.

,,

One of thedefinitions of a functional state, maybe the only one that matters, is

a functioning state has a monopoly on the use of violence. An

observation of my own is that many societal plans fall apart when they

have to deal with the reality of bad-actors (call it evil if you will).

&lt;br&gt;<br>

ah...and now we come to the crux of it all...the classic nature vs.

nurture. By now we know enough of psycolohy and marketing etc to know

that nurture can override nature.&amp;amp;nbsp; Put another way: humans are

domesticated ("civilized") animals. Mostly this is a good thing.

,,

We do have a "reptilian" brain. Concerned with survival, it can

lead people to do crazy-ass things. IMHO, what is needed is a

consciousnes shift.Like how kids today take the internet for

granted from birth. We need to place the highest priority on

education. Right now we stunt kids growth...for example we know

that we can introduce college level critical thinking to elementary

kids but we dont...Then we need to actually utilize all of our

technological potential. BUT...its focus must change from

military applications to a global harmonic aggenda

,,

I suppose my personal ideal would be something similar to that planet

Narrator described. Where all of the cities have been moved&

undergound save for places where Mega-Arcologies rise into the

sky.Everything else has been returned to wilderness.

Society is decentralized and free wi-fi covers the planet so people

just walk around in nature doing there work. Homes become more a

pace to store your stuff since people travel gloablly freely now.

Nature and technology on a global scale...thats what I call a cool

vision.

The Catholic Church wasn't set up to deal with the

idea that the local Priest can also be an evil child molester.

Forgiving him didn't work out well. Eventually the police and the

lawsuits put a stop to it, but that's what it took.

What made him molest children?Could it be the sick and inhuman

view that the church holds towards ses, and to women? Could it be

the vow of chastity, which directly contradicts our most basic primal

and powerful urge.; No wonder they get all twisted and perverted...

Bad actors can also happen on a national level, Hitler's

Germany. Sadam's Iraq. North Korea. We don't have lawsuits on this

level, so what stops them?

Hmmm. I honestly dont know Alex.&amp;amp;Why is it that our

leaders....throughout history and throughout the world today,

corrupt? I can't think of a single country that hasn't been party

to some great misdeeds against humanity. Okay maybe one...The

Soverign nation of Hawaii (which was illegally invaded by the US for

the sake of plantation companies and a military base in the pacific

rim.)

RE: No MansionWhat stops me from taking more than my

fair share of resources? I'm smarter, stronger, bigger, healthier, more

hansom, more ambitions, better connected to the political establishment

etc, shouldn't I get more? What stops me?

And then we have the

other problem, if something does stop me from getting more than my fair

share of resources, this implies my efforts are not being rewarded, and

not rewarding people like me is a bad thing for a society.

The same thing...the people with power The strong. The ambitious. the connected...

...somehow, we nead to cure whatever disease or human condition thathas made nearly every leader throughout recorded history,

corrupt/violent/greedy.

&nbsp;And also at the same time figure out why

those people who rise to power and prominence who use their clout to

cry for Peace get killed...

And furthermore, Most people dont need mansions...especially the

wealthy few who own them...How many rooms do you honestly need???

When is it enough? I can see someone who wanted to raise a large

family needing a mansion, but conversely it will cost them a small fortune to feed and clothe them...

And again, its priorites. If I was filthy rich, I can admit to

the strong urge to build that wizard tower-castle Ive always wanted

to...though I would actually want to build it! My idea of wealth

is the ability to travel and connect with people, to explore my

athletic potential.&amp;nbsp; After that, a family, and then whatever is

left over is for helping the world. People should be pursuing

wealth with the intent to help everyone. Instead we get business

people peddling hoards,mountains of junk and crap that is both poor

quality and poor taste.

;If you are rich...you have power.; Would you squander it on

needles luxury when you could be combining your forces with the other

ethical rich to push for social global change???

[phoenix]

What made him molest children?Could it be the sick and inhuman view that the church holds towards ses, and to women? Could it be the vow of chastity, which directly contradicts our most basic primal and powerful urge.; No wonder they get all twisted and perverted...

Careful. I know a lot of Catholics, and even a couple of priests. They aren't pedophiles, not even a little. There are also many non-religious child molesters. Therefore, the backwards opinions of the Church cannot be the only cause, or even a significant factor in the development of the disorder.

[SkyLion]

Careful. I know a lot of Catholics, and even a couple of priests. They aren't pedophiles, not even a little. There are also many non-religious child molesters. Therefore, the backwards opinions of the Church cannot be the only cause, or even a significant factor in the development of the disorder.

,,

i didnt say they were by default. And yes, a percentage of wackos get into any profession. Maybe it just seems like the percentage is higher in the church becaause it blows up the headlines when it happens...

[AnonCastillo]

Agriculture arose due to the power of city-states...almost all of the early ones were built by slaves...

,,

And I would argue that our quality of life, of the environment, of peoples connections to each other and between generations, has alot lacking in comparison to those who lived with nature.

You're putting the cart before the horse there. Agriculture allowed a portion of the population to focus on other tasks than self sustainability and trade for their food (separation of labor), and those people found it easier to congregate together for trade, leading to towns and eventually cities.

And while you might argue that our quality of life has degenerated, I'd disagree. I rather like having a computer. Having a car can be costly and annoying at times, but it's still beneficial enough that I'm willing to work to pay for it. Whether or not our connections to each other have deteriorated is a whole other topic of discussion that I could go on for hours about, but I don't think the causes of that have as much to do with not living in nature. As for the environment, pick up a copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist from your local library. If that turns out to be too long a read, watch the episodes of Penn & Teller's Bullshit about the environment.

Also, many native tribes, especially in the amazon have acces to remedies that pharmaceutical companies are still trying to figure out. Native Americans especially had less to worry about disease until the europeans came...

And yet, as has been pointed out, the majority of children in these cultures didn't live to adulthood. Many more women died in childbirth than do now.

I'm not a huge fan of western medicine, but there is one thing it has over eastern and tribal medicine: scientific testing. Studies have shown that placebos are about 60-70% as effective at pain relief as actual pain medication. If giving someone an empty pill and telling them it's a pain killer causes a majority of people to feel less pain, then the majority of any witch doctor's treatments are going to work on a majority of people whether they have any real effect or not. I'm all for doing tests to see which eastern and tribal remedies work as well as western alternatives, but that testing is kind of necessary.

,,

Likewise, your comment that tribal peoples spend every waking hour in a state of fear and worry, and your ethnocentric assumption that our lifestyle is superior points very candidly to your ignorance.

Did you ever read The Ant and the Grasshopper? It was one of Aesop's fables. Basically, an ant is spending all his time gathering and storing food while a grasshopper spends most of his time playing and teases the ant about how hard he works. Come winter, the ant has plenty of food, and the grasshopper can barely find any. The grasshopper asks the ant for food, and the ant basically tells the grasshopper to **** off because the grasshopper didn't do any of the work of gathering it. That story was written by someone in an agricultural society (Greece) that had contact with many small hunter-gatherer tribes (many of which assimilated into Greece, some willingly). Ethnocentric? Yeah. Accurate? Yeah.

Regarding communistic food production, the best solution I have heard comes from Permaculture. Like most things, having large centralized power/food/government etc. has allowed us to grow past our sustainable limits since the large subsidies involved skew and hide the "true cost."

,,

Food production, like energy generation needs to be localized, even down to the household.

Centralized food production has allowed us to grow past our previously sustainable limits. There's enough fertile farmland in the Sudan to feed the entire population of China, yet there are starving people in the entire region. This is partly because everything is localized. People in the rural areas don't produce much more food than what their families need, with just enough extra to sell/trade so they can get whatever they need but aren't able to produce themselves. So, when something does go wrong, there isn't a surplus of food to fall back on.

Another symptom of the same cause is what I see every day as a massage therapist. People who *know* they should exercise, stretch, eat well, and quit smoking...but they dont....

I know I should exercise more and eat better. I don't do it even when I have time off. I spend my days off playing video games and eating fast food. If I had more free time, would I exercise more and eat better? I might exercise more. I might not. Depends on whether or not anyone's hosting any good custom maps in WC3. I'd probably eat better, but not in the way you mean it.

Sure, most people would like to be in better shape. They'd also like to do the things that get them out of shape. Just because you give people the opportunity to make the "right" decision doesn't mean most of them will.

What I have found in my humble researching shows that the technology and know-how to solve our problems has existed for awhile now. We dont need the appearance of Novas to save us. We just need the will of enough people to want it.

This came up during the communist episode, but I feel the need to bring it up again: The US, eastern Europe, Japan, etc. generally have much cleaner environments than the former/current communist countries, and are even cleaner in many ways than many third world countries. In the third world, most people use wood and coal for fuel/heat/etc., both of which put out a lot of smoke and do a lot to damage air quality. The more advanced a country is, the higher percentage of their fuel is from oil/natural gas, which causes much less pollution for the same amount of energy output, and solar/wind power are almost exclusive to the most advanced countries.

It's the agricultural mentality, not the hunter-gatherer mentality, that drove the more advanced nations to switch to cleaner fuels. A hunter-gatherer mentality that's concerned with local, short term sustenance has no need to worry about what fuels they're using as long as they have heat. An agricultural mentality that's worrying about what's going to happen over the next 30 years is going to realize that increasing fuel usage is only sustainable in the long run if we're using more renewable, lower pollution fuels, just as they're also going to be thinking about how many new gadgets they can come up with to use that fuel. A system where everyone is concerned with their own local sustenance doesn't leave much room for people to worry about long term, global issues. A more integrated system allows for more of a separation of labor, and having one section of the population specialize in producing food for the rest allows for some other portion of the population to solve other problems.

For all that free market/libertarian economic systems are based around individualism, they do a better job of providing for the masses than any other. Capitalism is a lot like democracy: it's the worst economic system you could ever have to live under, except for all the others.

The reasons they dont are many and not easy to generalize but I can name a few off the top of my head: Media and government have turned education towards the production of ignorant consumers....many people who I think would make better choices, have simply never been exposed to the information.

Agreed, but education is a whole other topic that I could go on for hours about. Education needs to be more individualized and based on personal ability/learning capacity/intelligence type/etc.

,,

Privatized nuclear industries that want to build more plants (despite the lie we were sold of "too cheap to meter!" Nuclear power is the single most expensive thing we do, *not* counting the ecological costs of the waste products...stupidity!).

Funny, since most of Europe has switched over to nuclear power specifically because the environmental costs aren't as high as burning coal, oil, etc.

,,

I lent it to a friend and never got it back but I used to have this printout called "what the world wants" It had a grid with each square representing a billion dollars or some such. The whole grid represented what the US spends on the military *every year*. Then overlaid were shaded boxes for all of the things it would take to "fix" our current problems....dealing with world hunger, aids, land mines, retirement of national debts, universal health care etc etc etc. All of the shaded amounts were broken down and estimated costs give. For everything on the global agenda it took up less than a third of the total boxes.

Take the amount of money it would take to feed every single person in Africa. Attempt to actually do it, and you'll find the cost goes up to many times the original estimate. First and foremost you have outright theft on the part of governments and military groups in Africa (which is an obstacle that we would need a military to overcome). Next you have increasing costs of the services you need to provide that food (agriculture, shipping, refrigeration, other various industries that contribute at some step or through another industry) because you're sharply increasing demand for a particular service without the supply having time to go up gradually. And that's without outright price fixing/manipulation on the part of the companies (which the Archer Daniel Midlands company is really, really good at). Then you have the fact that providing large amounts of free food to people means that people will get as much of their food for free as possible, and reduce the amount of money they spend on food, meaning that local farmers will have no economic incentive to try to produce and sell food because a: nobody is going to pay for their food when they can get it for free through foreign aid, and b: they can get free food, so why bother growing any if they can feed themselves without doing the work? Put the local farmers out of business, and the amount of food you have to supply increases drastically, compounding the previous problems and exponentially increasing the costs. There's a book called The Road to Hell by Michael Maren, a former foreign aid worker in Rwanda and Somalia, that's a really good book on the subject.

----

Anyway, a lighter note to end the post on (sorry it's so lengthy, but I was a political science major, so I can't always stop myself from talking about such things):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4WA58rMu0 - There are klingons in the white house!

[metaphysician]

Just a general comment, thats related to alot of issues here:

Economic laws are pretty much just like physical laws. You can't break them, and if you try, there are consequences.

Take, for example, supply and demand, which determines the free market price of any given good or service.

You don't like that price, you think its too high ( pharmaceuticals ) or too low ( aggricultural goods ).

So, you decide to put a price ceiling on drugs, and a price floor on the food. Pricing by decree.

What actually happens? Well, with the price ceiling, what happens is two things. One, a shortage of the product, since the producers have less incentive to produce the product, while the consumers have more incentive to buy it. Congratulations, instead of more expensive drugs, you now have cheaper drugs that you can't buy, because you can't find them. Unless, of course, you add in rationing, which means you now have cheaper drugs you might be able to buy, if the rationing bureacracy likes you.

The second consequence, is a booming black market in the good. Whenever demand exceeds supply due to government intervention, you will have people moving outside the bounds of government intervention.

In the case of a price floor, the reverse happens. You now have more incentive to produce, and the consumers have less incentive to buy. Hence, you get a surplus. Despite the general belief, "surplus" is bad for business. It means you have stuff you spent money to make, that isn't selling. It also means your product isn't competitive with stuff sold by someone not operating under a price floor. The responses to these problems generally involve subsidies and tariffs, both of which have their *own* knock-on effects.

Is this an argument for laissez faire? Nope, because there is no such thing. If the government does not exert any power within the economy, than businesses will eventually exert governmental power within the economy illicitly. What it does mean, however, is any government intervention in the economy has to acknowledge and follow economic law, including accepting the consequences. Any governmental or social plan that relies on rewriting how economics works, is as useless and counterproductive as a flying machine that depends on redefining gravity as something that doesn't apply to it.

[Alex Green]

RE: Catholic Church & Molesters

I think the problem is less with the CC creating them than attracting them. But the real problem I'm pointing out is if we assume that no one is a bad actor (because everyone has the chance to choose good), then we should also expect them to run wild. For another example there are reports of the Amish's inability to deal with child abuse. It's much easier for everyone to live with someone else being a victim than to admit that nurture doesn't always work.

RE: Corruption and our Leaders

Nature of power.

Another fable comes to mind, "The mice voted to bell the cat."

RE: The Strong & Rich needing Mantions

Part of this is sexual politics, which in turn means it's going to be impossible to deal with since we are wired for it. Men like to show off, to demostraite their fitness. People like to be the best at something, be it athletics, body building, economics, art, gaining political power etc. This is why men are so competitive, it all comes back to historically only half of men having children. On a side note this is our peacock's tail, this sexual dynamic lead towards strong evolutionary pressure to increase our intelligence, our artistic and social abilities.

With showing off as fundemental a drive as it is, societies that harness compitition are going to be more productive than those that try to supress it.

[Blue Thunder]

Am I to understand that a thread about Mary Sues has turned itself into a discussion on meaningful topics?

[AnonCastillo]

Sorry. I'll stop hijacking useless threads now.

[Centimane]

Hey don't stop now! I've been absolutely fascinated with how a thread about Mary Sues (something I'd never heard about before) went from a debate about how fantastic our characters are, to a debate about Star Trek of all things, to a debate about economics and alternate power sources - with a little good social commentary thrown in for good measure. Please, continue!

[phoenix]

This happens a lot. ::rolleyes Nothing wrong with it, though.

[Blue Thunder]

Nothing wrong at all. Anything to take my mind off those horrible Mary Sues...*sharpens knife*

[Alex Green]

Just a general comment, thats related to alot of issues here:

Economic laws are pretty much just like physical laws. You can't break them, and if you try, there are consequences.

It's amazing how many politicians don't understand this.

...supply and demand, which determines the free market price of any given good or service. You don't like that price, you think its too high ( pharmaceuticals ) or too low ( aggricultural goods )...

Hawaii tried this with gas within the last year or so, I think it only lasted a few months. If you prevent people from making money at something, then they won’t do it. If that something is shipping oil, don’t expect a lot of gas around.

Yet another way to look at this is "punishment" and "reward". Punish things you don't want to see, reward things you do want to see. Very often it's tried the other way around.

Put a windfall tax on "excessive" oil revenues, and you'll see less oil development. Less oil means higher prices (and as a capital intensive activity, it’s not clear profits are “excessive”… the numbers are big, but the numbers needed to create those numbers were also big).

Give money to "X" (where X is any social group or economic activity), and you are rewarding people for this activity and enabling it. This can be good or bad, or even both at once.

[AnonCastillo]

Er, I had meant that to be a smily face. So, no offense taken. And Cottus, you can always weigh in! I'm a nihilistic libertarian, so I don't think your opinions can be any less popular than mine, if that helps any.

[SkyLion]

All I can say at this point is that there *really* are solutions, and that most of the problems we face as individuals and as a species are by-products of our own ignorance. They are design problems with the infrastructures of our lives. In most cases we designed solutions to existing problems that seemed good at the time. It was only later that we learned we had created more and more problems. Now we have the opportunity to redesign our lives and we choose not to because noone wants to deal with scrapping the old infrastructures and building newer, more informed, healthier ones.

,,

This hold true on the individual level...ie if I want to become healthier and fit I must design a lifestyle infrastructure that provides me with adequate nutrition, rest and exercise.

,,

If we want to deal with the entire pandoras box of environmental, energetic, and socio-political problems created by the crutch of cgeap energy in the form of oil, we are going to have to redesign our cities, power plants and distribution networks...not to mention our sociological ideas about what is "enough", what is "quality of life" and the real meaning of "wealth".

,,

A modern fable by Bucky (one of my personal heroes if you cant tell), involved a rich man who had taken his entire fortune and family out to sea on his luxury yacht. A storm brews up and trashes his boat and his iron safe plummets to the sea floor. When stripped of all our trappings and the socially agreed upon value of money, true wealth becomes, in Buckys words, the measure of how many days forward into the future, ones resources (physical and mental) are capable of sustaining ones life and health.

,,

If we placed health as the number 1 global priority, I wonder what society would look like?

[Alex Green]

All I can say at this point is that there *really* are solutions, and that most of the problems we face as individuals and as a species are by-products of our own ignorance.

I believe it. My personal way of viewing this is man's current civilization is still very, very new. The problems possed by industrialization are still being worked out. We've had massive changes in our social, political, scientific, (etc) systems in the last 300 years and figuring out how everything should be put together might take another 300. Things are currently unstable, just think of how disruptive the introduction of internet was/is.

If we placed health as the number 1 global priority, I wonder what society would look like?

I'm really not sure how to answer this one. My feeling is that pretty much no one places money as number one, the problem is they place themselves as number one and then define themselves by how much they earn or have. We are ruled by self interest.

[AnonCastillo]

Someone mentioned Godwin's Law on another forum I read, and I thought I should mention how impressive it was that we managed to go five whole pages without once bringing Nazis or Hitler into the discussion. It's almost like we're not even on the internet!

[SkyLion]

Someone mentioned Godwin's Law on another forum I read, and I thought I should mention how impressive it was that we managed to go five whole pages without once bringing Nazis or Hitler into the discussion. It's almost like we're not even on the internet!

,,

Sorry to burst your bubble there AC, but we didn't even make it to 4 pages:

,,

Bad actors can also happen on a national level, Hitler’s Germany. Sadam’s Iraq. North Korea. We don’t have lawsuits on this level, so what stops them?

[AnonCastillo]

Sorry to burst your bubble there AC, but we didn't even make it to 4 pages:

Aww. Well, we at least didn't make it a major discussion point.

[metaphysician]

Oh, this is nothing. I've seen outright flamewars go into the several thousand posts without anybody noticeable invoking Godwin.

[Alex Green]

I felt it was used as an example appropriately however. Too often it comes up out of context (Example: I don't like Politician "X" & he's right wing, ergo he's a nazi).

[metaphysician]

I felt it was used as an example appropriately however. Too often it comes up out of context (Example: I don't like Politician "X" & he's right wing, ergo he's a nazi).

I agree. I'm not sure what the actual wording Godwin used was, but I tend to only count it if its used as an insult.

[Blue Thunder]

And I would argue that our quality of life, of the environment, of peoples connections to each other and between generations, has alot lacking in comparison to those who lived with nature.

I know this was posted a while ago, but...

Lacking in comparison? Let's compare a day in my life, compared to that of someone "living with nature"

When Lex wakes up and looks at his society...

He has refridgeration, air conditioning, pharmacological wonders, advanced medical surgery, automobiles, a high birth survival rate, literacy, organized military forces, an advanced lifespan, an advanced knowledge of the cosmos, aircraft technology, ice cream, sanitation systems, cures for most sicknesses, global awareness, cheesey puffs, cosmetic surgery, cinema, electricity, microchip technology, fudge pops, highways, housing for the majority of the population, scientific theories, microwave ovens, literature, ocean cruisers, advanced farming techniques, satellite technology, nude beaches, a fully explored globe, equal rights for both genders, equal treatment for all races, an advanced law and justice system, and the series of tubes known as the Internets. Just to name a few.

When Mabubutikibaba looks at his society...

He has to hack through a haunted ghost jungle with a sword every day just to reach a water source, and prays to his goddess that some demonic two-headed wolf doesn't rip his head off while he's out. Half the people in his village have some kind of sickness or virus, whether its malaria or some mutant strain of HIV that rots penises off. The nearest human village is twenty miles away, and the two groups communicate by 50-mile long strings connected to coconuts, and every few days the village engineer (the best one at tying knots) has to journey out to repair the damaged phone line and has a good chance of being eaten alive my 5-foot tall ants or having his testicles ripped free by demonic lemurs. The elder of the village is only 24, and her boobs leave distinct dragging marks on the dirt (they also help as a plow). The birth rate is somehow in the negative; villagers will actually de-age and enter their mothers' birth canals so they can be reborn as fetal sludge. The village shamans have a feeling this is due to the curse a travelling warlock put on the village, who was angered by the quality of virgins he was given as appeasement. And that was after the warlock summoned a horde of zombies to assault the village. His son was killed by a man-eating dragonfly the size of a bus and his daughter was killed by the curse of a dead grizzly bear's angry spirit. His sister was recently taken away by a pterodactyl, but it was her fault; she walked too far from the safety radius of the village (which is roughly 30 feet). For musical entertainment, the villagers use the femurs of their dead relatives as drum sticks; they could use wood drumsticks instead, but then they would be wasting their primary foodsource. Wood has a lot of protein. And so do the 10-foot long catepillars they occasionally spear and drag back to feast on, but an average of nine villagers die every time they attack one. His village holds athletic compititions to see who can shotput hardened gorilla dung the farthest. His idea of sexual entertainment is playing with a clay figurine of a female with abnormally large boobies, but no head or limbs, which he hides under his bed of sticks for fear that his third wife will find him masturbating to it. For medicine, he eats plants that make him so sick he vomits his spleen; sure, he has no spleen anymore, but the flu is out of his system. And who needs a spleen? For clothing, he wears a few leaves tied together with strands of his ancestors' hair. His hut is actually the hollowed-out skull of a T-Rex that his village's early settlers managed to kill when they first entered the jungle a few decade back, though only 10% of the villagers survived that particular assault. The walls of his hut are made of twigs reinforced with human feces. When pooping, he wipes with an empty hand while the other hand is busy swatting away 3-foot wide brain-sucking mosquitos with a machette. His village's entire history isn't recorded by years, its recorded by frequency of dragon attacks. His brother is the villager's greatest inventor; he re-invented the wheel. The last time a villager invented the wheel, a monkey ran off with the blueprint, setting the village back by a whole millenia. And last time the villagers checked, the monkey society down the river had mastered nuclear fission and hover technology, and were on the verge of turning their bodies into pure energy.

In closing...

Mabubutikibaba wakes up fearing that if he looks at his reflection in the river for too long, his soul will be taken away to an evil snake demon's fortress on the moon.

Lex wakes up knowing he can smack his junk around while watching Internet porn at his leisure, and order delivery pizza from his phone. Double pepporoni with black olives.

And Lex's society lacks what exactly, that Mabubutikibaba's society can offer? Fire-breathing serpents? Because I don't think we need any of those.

[AnonCastillo]

Blue Thunder, while I agree with your main point, your post is idiotic. Yes, many primitive people had odd beliefs, but their fears about demons, mythical monsters, etc. didn't have much more effect on their life than urban legends or belief in the rapture have on many people today. Sure, it's something scary that people think they might have to deal with some day, but nothing they reasonably expect to have to deal with every day. I know you were exaggerating for effect, but seriously, while people's lives then were nowhere near as great as they are now, they weren't quite as squalid and horrible as some people seem to think. Most people who lived past the first few years lived well into adulthood, even if the majority of children died shortly after childbirth, if not during pregnancy.

People in that day and age did at least have a shorter work day, I'll grant skylion that much, although they got shorter lifespans out of the deal. They may have had more freedom, to an extent, although there wasn't exactly a lot to do with it, and any freedom of expression was still subject to heavy social pressure and possibly even physical violence depending on the other people they were living with.

There's some quote from Ayn Rand where she mentions how much higher live birth rates and life expectancies are in industrialized nations, and she recommends kissing the grimiest smokestack we can find to thank it for the fact that we lived more than a week after birth. Hell, the reason christians began baptizing children shortly after birth was because so few of them lived through their first few years. If Skylion thinks life expectancies or live birth rates were much higher 10000 years ago than they were 1000 years ago, I'm gonna ask for proof, because I have serious doubts.

Maybe time spent alive isn't the only thing we should rate quality of life by, but I'd say having more knowledge and understanding counts for something, even if the majority of people don't use it for much.

[Centimane]

Personally I think that the quality of a person's life, environment, and connections with others are entirely an individual affair and have very little to do with societies and cultures. Truly happy and content individuals can be found in approximately equal amounts in all parts of the world (or at least it seems that way to me, but seeing as how I've only been through about half of it I may be wrong about the other half) and their contentment usually has little to do with what level of technology or quality of healthcare is available to them. I personally have met and spoken with a family of five who lived in a shack constructed of sticks (not branches, calling them that would be an insult to actual branches) so thin that I could actually see the sunlight coming through from the opposite side of their house. This family was about as dirt poor as any people I have ever met. But they were happy. They were happy and they loved each other, and their kids in particular didn't particularly care that you could see through their house. On the other hand I met families in that same area, some of whom had much better houses and quality of life, who seemed pretty miserable and quite envious of me and my American looks, clothes, and money. I could give similar examples of families I've met right here in America. They had much nicer homes (some of them *much* nicer homes), lots more money, and all kinds of modern conveniences. Some of them were happy, some of them weren't. I've met a 9 year old girl cursed with a body that wouldn't do anything she wanted it to and a perfect mind trapped inside, and she was one of the happiest people I've ever met. I've also met wealthy, healthy 65+ retired people without a care in the world who were positively miserable.

So I know I'm still young, and hardly the most experienced guy out there, but my personal take on the matter is that cultures, technologies, and environments are only the products or symptoms of the individual perspectives of the people within them. They do very little in the way of causing or destroying a happy, contented person and they do almost nothing at all to a loving and/or loved person.

[Alex Green]

RE: Happyness.

Modern society isn't set up to maximize happyness... but then neither was old society.

RE: Old Beliefs not having a day-to-day effect.

Somehow I doubt this. Traditionally the village shamman or Prest or whatever is one of the most powerful people in the tribe. God was right there looking over your shoulder and you could expect to be stoned for stepping to far out of line. I.e. not quite fitting into society was just abnormal, it was evil. Having the wrong beliefs was evil.

Thought experiment: Your position in society will be determined randomly (this includes whether or not you live to adulthood). Which one do you choose to join?